Subhash v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

1. The present is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant/accused Subhash 2015:DHC:9471-DB seeking regular bail in FIR No.197/2014 registered at Police Station- Lahori Gate, Delhi, under Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120B IPC.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.11.2014 and that the charge-sheet in the subject FIR has been filed on 23.03.2015 after investigation.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would urge that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2012 (1) SCC 40 and in view of the decision of this court in Rajat Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi: 2015 (3) JCC 1493, no useful purpose shall be served by detaining the applicant in judicial custody. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would further urge that no recovery has to be made from the applicant and that the latter has clean antecedents. Lastly, it would be urged on behalf of the counsel for the applicant that the latter has been in judicial custody for almost a year and that he has a young wife and a son who are stated to be abnormal and require constant care and attention.

4. On the contrary Mr M.S.Oberoi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, would urge that keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the severity of punishment in the event of conviction, the present is not a fit case for grant of regular bail.

5. As per the prosecution, the applicant, who was assigned the responsibility of managing the accounts of the complainant-firm and collection of cheques from debtors, is alleged to have deposited the amounts received on behalf of the complainant into an account operated by the applicant in the name of the complainant-firm.

6. In Sanjay Chandra (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has crystallized the law in respect of regular bail as under:-

7. A plain reading of the above decision makes it crystal clear that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It is further observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Supreme Court further observed that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he will tamper with the witnesses. To encapsulate, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that pre-conviction detention should not be resorted to except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty.

8. In the present case there is no gainsaying the fact that the applicant is charged of an economic offence. However, the circumstance that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the chargesheet has already been filed cannot be lost sight of. Further, there is no hint or allegation that the accused is a flight risk; nor is there any material to suggest that he will tamper with the evidence. Therefore, in my view, the presence of the applicant in further custody is not necessary. The applicant has already been in custody for almost a year. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions.